In reviewing the tens of thousands images taken on 9/11 and available across the Internet, it is clear that the flight that struck the second of the Twin Towers was not United Airlines Flight 175, because views from underneath the plane reveal a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. diameter, cylinder that opens just before impact. The pod appears in all photographs that clearly show that aspect of the plane, and can be seen in the frame-by-frame analysis of all videos of the impact, where there is sufficient contrast and resolution.
What is so important about this evidence is that it clearly shows that 9/11 was an Inside Job: Ali Bin Laden and his 20 hijackers can't arrange for United Airlines planes to be swapped or outfitted with pods. It cannot be explained by the "They Let It Happen On Purpose" fall-back disinformation put out by the shills - see Fahrenheit 9/11 Disinfo.
In a landmark paper in October 2002, Leonard Spencer wrote of The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking. He wrote:
For it is rather plain to see that the aircraft is carrying an anomalous device underneath its right wing, very close to the fuselage. It almost looks like a third engine and is connected by tubing to the tail section. It also has a nozzle sticking out at the front.
Not only is the anomalous device on the plane's underside clearly visible, it is clear too that, just as the plane's nose strikes the building, the nozzle of this device fires a jet of flame.
Eduardo Martin de Pozuelo and Xavier Mas de Xax�s reported these results in a series of articles entitled starting on June 22 2003 with "Los misteriosos reflejos del 11-S", in Barcelona's largest daily newspaper, the well-respected La Vanguardia in Spain:
In the frozen images of various film shots of the final run of United Airlines flight 175, there are three strange shapes discernible, which the aeronautical experts consulted find difficult to explain. They consist of two long shapes located underneath the fuselage, one towards the bow and the other towards the stern of the plane. There is a third, seemingly pyramidal in shape, on the underbelly, almost in the center of the plane. Boeing's department of commercial aviation, with headquarters in Seattle, examined the photographs for ten days and, having announced an explanation for the phenomenon, declined to make a statement on what it saw.
An English translation of the newspaper article subsequently appeared on www.rense.com on September 14, 2003.
the "objects discerned cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun upon the plane as they always appear as the same shape and size, although their luminosity varies." This result was reached having subjected the photographs to a digital image process "which would respond to changes in luminance" which can be seen with the naked eye and which, in principle, would make no sense, given that the fuselage of commercial airplanes is cylindrical and flat, according to the cited technical report.
The author, who has had extensive professional experience in digital image processing, artificial neuronal networks and biometry, says in the report that "the same treatment" was applied to each of the photographs "using three standard digital image processing algorithms", the technical data of which are detailed at length in the dossier. Having clarified that "the images studied are taken from different angles of observation", it establishes that the "objects detected present distinct luminosity as they are in relief" and adds that "this is the only possible explanation", finally pointing out that "the objects detected can be clearly distinguished from the landing gear."
La Vanguardia asked Boeing about these features, who claimed they were unable to respond for reasons of national security!
Since the early 9/11 research work, and the La Vanguardia article, a number of other sites have prominently featured this evidence:
Working with the researchers and journalists who did the La Vanguardia article in Spain, Luis and Sally highlight this evidence on one of the web's few bilingual (English/Spanish) Sept 11 WebSites. 1 For an overview of a slide presentation of the evidence, see ../Topics/TwinTowers/Wtc2Plane
Rosalee Grable, one of
the best researchers on the Sept
Videos has done a number of frame-by-frame
analyses of the
WTC2 plane footage, with video image enhancement to highlight the
details. Look for
Phil Jayhan prominently features this evidence his website, and it has generated a huge amount of interest, often from within the government according to his site's logs. Phil did a lot of cold-calling to offices of congresscritters and senators to publicize these results, and was often met with honest surprise and interest by the staffers.
We note that the
assumption on Phil's site and Rosalee's work is
that the opening of the pod and subsequent emission of a flash is a
We are a little more cautious; there are other things besides a missile lauch that the flash could be from, as Leonard Spencer pointed out.
Questionsquestions.net tries to rebut the evidence in a long article where they write:
A newspaper in Spain published a article that concluded that there were cylindrical objects on the underside of the fuselage, in addition to the pod. It referenced an image analysis done at a Spanish university. Although the analysis uses a lot of fancy terms, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They identified images in which "cylindrical objects" are visible on the plane and applied filtering:
Leaving aside the errors of fact namely that it was a series of articles, and of omission in that the newspaper was Barcelona's largest daily, and as such, was the biggest mainstream coverage in the world to date on any real 9/11 physical evidence, we note the general anti-intellectual line of reasoning that Americans seem to love. It was the same approach the George W. Bush used in the debates of the 2000 election - everything of a factual nature was "fuzzy arithmetic" - which almost got him elected. 2
The "fancy terms" the Salters so derisively refer to are the tried and tested techniques of image analysis in Computer Science. First and second derivative edge/contour detection are the standard algorithms commonly used in digital image processing because of their rigourous and fundamental mathematical basis. Anyone who has worked at a professional level in image analysis, as we have, knows that if the outline shows up using three of the most commonly used techniques like Sobel, it can be said to be confirmed as being there.
Instead of arguing why this university's research - no double quotes necessary - was flawed, the Salters simply opine
This "university study" does not rise to the level of university research.
which is an outright lie; if they wanted to argue against the conclusions of the technical report, they would have had to propose other edge detection techniques accepted in Computer Science, and do the hard work of the actual image analysis on the same images to show the absence of what they want to avoid.
Instead, they adopt the CIA/CNN approach of the American McMedia whereby whoever does the most name-calling long enough carries the day:
The supposed cylinders on the fuselage of the plane are so obviously specular highlights that I'm inclined to think that this is either a practical joke or disinformation aimed at those who are not technically or visually astute.
We are not only technically and visually astute, but we have worked doing university research in image analysis - including contour/edge detection - and find no flaw of substance in the university's research or report.
Because of the importance of this evidence in destroying the current The Saudis Did It disinformation campaigns, there has been strenuous attacks on http://www.letsroll911.org/ in Internet forums, and a set of Misinfo Sites - some well funded - have sprung up to attack these results.
recomended:9/11 photo flight 175
Flight 175 Photo, just before impact with the WTC. This is perhaps the best photo of any of the 9/11 planes. Is it a fake? or is it evidence of remote control ?
The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks September 11 Videos FAKE ?
Planes comparisons flight 175 WTC 911 video
POD analysis (one of the first done, i performed this in 2003))